The history of confederate flags, to clear out wilful ignorance

I mean- if we just ignore the genocides and all that- the Nazi party was a “German Pride” thing. The allies humiliated and burdened the Germans after WW1 and many Germans just didn’t care for that at all. They felt exploited. They felt like their way of life and culture were under fire. They felt their economic futures were at risk... sound familiar? If we leave out slavery- that’s.. those are many reasons the confederates and sympathizers give for the civil war no?

Hell- the Iron Cross predates WW1 and was a major part of German martial culture. It was dropped due to its associations with the Nazis... and then... picked up gain and rebranded it after over 6 decades past the war. Here is something we can look at. The iron cross was associated with the Nazis... but it wasn’t a Nazi symbol. Germany decided that 60 years or so was “enough” time to let it simmer down.

How is that different? Well... 1. The Germans had the sense to retire the symbol after the Nazi government was defeated. 2. The Nazis weren’t the originators of the symbol. The symbol wasn’t linked to an ideology- it was a military symbol used by the military- like Germany military forces before and after the Nazis. The flag was made by the confederacy, for the confederacy, and liked to the ideologies of the confederacy.

Now- interestingly enough- Robert E Lee- General of the confederate armies whom this flag is attributed- historians argue much about the man. What we do know- is that he claimed slavery anywhere in any form was an evil thing. But- in the same breath he also stated that the harsh discipline of slaves was “necessary for their proper instruction.” Lee did not speak out against slavery- other than to condemn its evils while stating its necessity. Lee did not support the rights of blacks after the war- but... here is the irony...

General Robert E Lee was against erecting monuments to the confederacy. It was the wish of Lee that as a nation we not “keep open the scars” and instead put civil strife behind us and move forward as one nation. So regardless of what one believes was Lee’s stance on on slavery or race- Lee was very clear on what he though of keeping around old reminders of the civil war.

While president of Washington college- Lee did not want the “confederate flag” flying above the school. He opposed its use and like other monuments- felt it was best left in the past as it was a symbol of division that would hurt the reintegration of the south and the healing of the US post war. In 2020- many still have strong feelings about the civil war and there is STILL division and resentment from the war. We STILL are seeing confederate monuments as offensive and upsetting- so Lee’s views on that matter are silk relevant today as they were at the time- perhaps ironically because largely the south did not heed his advice after the war, and so the wound is still open because they won’t let it close and call the war over and lost.

One way or another- the “Confederate flag” is problematic. From its inception through most of its history it has symbolized forces that were against the United States of America. The Taliban run schools- help with local problems in controlled villages. Some support them. Isis too. How would one feel about flying their flag as a symbol of rebellion and underdog tenacity? If someone came to America, and flew that flag as part of their heritage.. how would you feel about that? What if they flew it above a state capital?

Don’t forget- the confederacy seceded. As far as the south was concerned- they were another country. So- having been annexed to America in the 1800’s... I wonder how people who demand immigrants assimilate and adopt American culture- justify keeping southern heritage after the south was brought to the United States?

Now- ordinarily- this is nuanced- within a country as large as the US- you will have local cultures and local traditions and local histories. Strong identities of region not just a single national identity. But... in the case if the south and the civil war- we are talking about what was- by its own reckoning- it’s own country. A country that was brought in to the United States. Of course if would keep some local traditions and history. But- let’s make a line here between a country like Hawaii that was conquered- and a country formed by treason because it refused to obey the laws and processes of democracy because it didn’t like the way things were going for it.

What’s the difference right? The USA was founded by traitors against Britain for the same reasons right? Well... yeah. But.... the USA and Britain more or less healed that rift. We don’t really have bad blood. By and large- it was water under the bridge not long after the whole thing happened. The UK didn’t spend 150 years saying “you won this round- but we will rise again!” Perhaps more importantly- we won. Winning a rebellion vs loosing it often changes the way history views these things.

Just let the damn flag die. The war is over. It isn’t coming back. If I’m wrong- you can fly whatever flag you want if you ever get the guts to try it again. If y’all can win next time- you can fly whatever flag you want- and hey- if the confederacy final wins- maybe remember how upset you were when America told you you couldn’t have your treason badge- and will you let us still fly the Stars and Stripes- for our heritage?

the only thing i have to add is that immigrants choose to come to a county and a group that was effectively annexed back into a county did not choose to be part of the culture and actively opposed being part of said country to the point of being willing to die for it.

I’d agree you have a point there on principal. Except... they totally did agree to come back. The confederacy surrendered. Many of the generals made their own individual surrenders, and the acting government surrendered. The southern “foot soldier” surrendered as well- they succeeded from the union when they didn’t like its call- they didn’t succeed from the Confederacy. The officers under these generals or the troops didn’t by and large keep fighting or start a new government. They laid down arms and agreed to the terms of surrender set forth. Which alone invalidates the idea they’d be willing to die- they’d perhaps risk it on calculated odds- but when the odds turned- they decided that death was not something they were willing to do next to becoming a citizen. Nor was government in exile.

The one true flag of the confederacy- the flag all confederates and sympathizers can rally under, the confederate flag that shows the heritage and tradition of the south and should be hung with pride at NASCAR and state capitols, in truck beds and on bathing suits- a big, white, surrender flag. That I think is a fair compromise to this whole issue- and one that would not be problematic while still embracing the rebellious spirit and historical heritage many say justifies the battle flag.

calling surrendering choosing to come back is similar to saying the the various people who have been enslaved throughout history chose to be slaves because they didnt all fight it to death.
"Which alone invalidates the idea they’d be willing to die"
that's not how it works mate, saying "oh they surrendered when they realized they lost means them being willing to die is invalid" is illogical and arguably disingenuous. Being willing to die for something doesnt mean you have to be willing to die when its glaringly obvious you wouldnt actually be dying for it or else you arent actually willing to die for it. Being willing to die for something doesnt mean you have to be willing to die for nothing.
that's at BEST a true Scotsman fallacy.
"a big, white, surrender flag."
thats being purposefully antagonistic. "hey you surrendered so your historic heritage is surrender"
"rebellious spirit" great joke, now wheres your real justification that isnt patently wrong?

and again, claiming that immigrants and annexed people are the same is a false equivelency, claiming that an annexed, conquered people choosing not to die for nothing means they should assimilate to the culture of the belligerent faction is also morally questionable and is indirectly supporting the actions of the american government to wipe out the native american culture through kidnapping their children because its the same exact situation just with the confederates didnt have their culture wiped after they were defeated.

I suppose that we are both using imperfect analogies as... there is a difference between being conquered and having an insurrection thwarted, and not having your culture, language, etc. erased; not being subjugated- these are major points that certainly make the situation different from slavery or native tribes or many if not most situations of conquest.

Perhaps my assessment of acclimation was slightly tongue in cheek- but I certainly think it’s still apt in the specific circumstance of immigration much of the time.

Your rebuttal that the southern people are different because joining the United States rather than dying or suffering continuing death amongst their family and friends, fear, and poverty- well... how is that different than many immigrants who come to the United States not wanting to leave their homes- but NEEDING to due to the conditions there and the all but certain fate they foresee if they do not?

If you talk to many immigrants of recent past- you’ll find they didn’t come here because they thought the USA was so awesome, or a golden paved land. They came as refugees from one of the conflicts in Africa in the 80’s or 90’s- because if they didn’t ethnic or political cleansing would wipe them out. Perhaps South America- for similar reasons, perhaps from China in the 1950’s or later- again- for similar reasons. Many would wish to go home if they could, or if their “home” as it was still existed.

Treason is not a part of a culture. Heritage- an inheritance- treason shouldn’t be part of that either- unless the people of the south believe that they should still be held to account for it. We wouldn’t have the Germany we have today if not for the transformation that WW2 had on the nation and the world. So does Germany proudly declare “we were the Nazis! Here’s our flag! It stands for not allowing yourself to be bullied, and innovation!” “Hey world- you like the UN and Jet Planes etc? Well- be thankful for our Nazi Heritage!”

The rebels attacked their own government, started a bloody and divisive war, gave up, and then bitched about it for 150+ years even when in the interest of reunification the United States largely used a “light touch” and was willing to let a lot just be water under the bridge. And it isn’t simply that the confederacy surrendered- for all the talk of the south and rising again and such- 150 years and no ones made a solid run at it since- despite numerous opportunities to do so potentially with success? The south is willingly a part of the United States. Those straddling the line aren’t rebels- they’re just assholes. Shit or get off the pot. My heritage is bustin up the confederacy, so I’m gonna take their flag- it’s part of my culture and I’m sorry if that offends some people.

its funny you mention Nazi uniforms i was also thinking the same thing. i'm sure you know they were designed by Hugo Boss. Really smart looking, especially when you compare them to the baggier look that the allied field generals would wear.

I do, but it’s still a fun fact. You may know this one as well- but for the fun facts in the thread Brothers Adolf and Rudolph Dassler owned an athletics shoe company but had a falling out. They split up and formed PUMA and Adidas. Rudolph was forced to make weapons for the Nazis and believed Adolf had a hand in that- so after the war- Rudolph told the allies that Adolf has aided the Nazis. They did not make amends. So Puma made rocket launchers (Rudolph tried fruitlessly to be allowed to make boots) but both brothers were Nazis (as many business men were- although accounts vary on the brothers feelings about the Nazis at various times-) however what is important is that they both joined the party somewhat “early” and while working together produced foot wear for the Hitler youth, Nazi athletic programs, and even the Berlin Olympics.

Adolf was found guilty of the second highest level of Nazi involvement and would have faced 10 years in prison and being removed from his company- but a friend- the half Jewish mayor of their town- spoke on his behalf and said Adolf had helped him and his him from the Nazis- sparing Adolf the worse fate. Puma and Adidas are still HQ’d in that same town- and to this day many people there will look at your shoes and decide what “side” you belong to. Although from what I hear they aren’t as serious about it as they once were.

And of course- Dr Porsche worked for the Nazis (any surprise their tanks were amazing on paper, great when they worked, and frequently broken requiring convoluted and troublesome repairs?) so for all the bad one can say- they had style- many of the benchmark style leaders of the present and past 60 odd years were involved with the Nazis.

i am a bit of a WWII buff so i knew these things yes, although not quite as in depth as you though haha. Porsche did lose the contract for the Tiger, the most iconic german tank (and arguably of all time), though to Henschel even though Porsche gave the tank its name. When you look at his design it is nowhere near as good looking as well as using a large amount of copper that Germany had little of.

Yeah. Germany had some very interesting technology, which would later go on to largely benefit the world, but it was also likely their downfall. The amount of time and resources they put into details and improvements that translated into theoretically better equipment- but in the real world didn’t offer the optimum balance of function and thrift to win wars- was staggering.

The wavy if waffle pattern that can be seen on many German armored vehicles was Zemmirit- a paste that was applied in a labor intensive and painstaking process which greatly extended the time to finish vehicles by days. The paste helped vehicles be non magnetic- to prevent the use of magnetic explosives and mines.

The only problem with that idea...? In practice the allies didn’t really use magnetic anti tank mines much at all- the Germans were the only force that heavily used magnetic devices for anti armor. Fears the Soviets would use captured German munitions against them also didn’t pan out. Allies tended to use- asides anti tank propelled ordinance and buried mines- mines using chemical adhesive of some sort- improvised or factory made.

So in the end- the entire exercise was just a drain on resources that slowed the build and repair of vehicles and effected their dynamic performance through the added weight of the coating.